436 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Change what you pick in DAO, get a different epilogue card. Some people find that reactive and appealing. I do not.

[MorrigansLove]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Change what you pick in DAO, get a different epilogue card. Some people find that reactive and appealing. I do not.

What do you find appealing, then?

[Persephone]

Justin2k wrote...

Play it more than once? Why?

The differences in multiple playthroughs will be minimal at best. Side with mages, side with templars, be good, be evil. Choices are redundant when 98% of them come out with the exact same result.

The choices in this game are shoehorned in because they thought "wait, this is a sequel.. we better at least have some text and some options in between our awesome cool Dynasty Warriors 9 gameplay.

Personally I have encountered many, MANY differences in 5 playthroughs (I'm currently on my sixth). 

And the same could be said about DAO and its b/w choices that lead to different (bugged) MS Dos text boxes firing at the end.

[Persephone]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Change what you pick in DAO, get a different epilogue card. Some people find that reactive and appealing. I do not.

What do you find appealing, then?

A combination of the strengths of both games in DA3.

And before I get yelled at that DAII had none: 

[1Nosphorus1]

Justin2k wrote...

Play it more than once? Why?

Because I slagged off the game just because of the bugs, after about 40 hours I rushed the ending to find out what the hell the story was about because the bugs were getting on my nerves.

Now that some of them have been corrected, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and say for a game, it's ok (Considering I got it for like £30 2 days prior to release), but for a Dragon Age game it's mediocre, something you'd expect from a game much further down the line (Dragon Age 4 or something of the sort).

Edit: I happened to like the end slides, I felt it gave more closure than someone just going "LOL cya Warden" since it gave a 3rd person perspective on that persons ending.

However, the Wardens story felt far from over, so many things left untied which was why I had hoped it got cleared up in this one.

Modifié par 1Nosphorus1, 17 avril 2011 - 12:59 .

[upsettingshorts]

MorrigansLove wrote...

What do you find appealing, then?

Well I loved how in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 1 the gameworld reacted to the choices and I experienced the result firsthand.  It meant that the choices - not particularly remarkable by themselves I thought in either game - had weight, because the consequences of your decision could be felt in the near future, and you would have to play with/through the world you helped to create even in a small way.

What I liked about Dragon Age 2 was that the protagonist's opinions actually mattered to the people around him.  And that made relationships dynamic.  My Hawke in particular would feel like he failed the game.  Something that is not possible in DAO unless you simply don't finish.  The Archdemon always dies.  Rayin Hawke wanted to save Kirkwall and preserve the status quo, he failed.  It was roleplaying.

I would have liked more of the former in the latter, and more of the latter in the former.  That would be fantastic.  I felt DA2 didn't react enough from Act to Act, and I felt like I was simply picking options in TW1 and AP.  DAO provided neither, though it was excellent at introducing the world and providing exposition through its locations and characters.

Persephone wrote...

A combination of the strengths of both games in DA3.

Indeed.  The extremely short version of my opinion of DA2 could be summed up like this:

"I want DA3 to be a much improved DA2, not a return to DAO."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 01:03 .

[MorrigansLove]

Persephone wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Change what you pick in DAO, get a different epilogue card. Some people find that reactive and appealing. I do not.

What do you find appealing, then?

A combination of the strengths of both games in DA3.

And before I get yelled at that DAII had none: 

Hey, I liked the combat in DA2(not the wave mechanic, mind you). I certainly found it both exhilarating and tactical.

[Persephone]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

What do you find appealing, then?

Well I loved how in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 1 the gameworld reacted to the choices and I experienced the result firsthand.  It meant that the choices - not particularly remarkable by themselves I thought in either game - had weight, because the consequences of your decision could be felt in the near future, and you would have to play with/through the world you helped to create even in a small way.

What I liked about Dragon Age 2 was that the protagonist's opinions actually mattered to the people around him.  And that made relationships dynamic.  My Hawke in particular would feel like he failed the game.  Something that is not possible in DAO unless you simply don't finish.  The Archdemon always dies.  Rayin Hawke wanted to save Kirkwall and preserve the status quo, he failed.  It's was roleplaying.

I would have liked more of the former in the latter, and more of the latter in the former.  That would be fantastic.  I felt DA2 didn't react enough from Act to Act, and I felt like I was simply picking options in TW1 and AP.  DAO provided neither, though it was excellent at introducing the world and providing exposition through its locations and characters.

Persephone wrote...

A combination of the strengths of both games in DA3.

Indeed.  The extremely short version of my opinion of DA2 could be summed up like this:

"I want DA3 to be a much improved DA2, not a return to DAO."

You read my bloody mind! You aren't a blood mage, are you?

[MorrigansLove]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

What do you find appealing, then?

Well I loved how in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 1 the gameworld reacted to the choices and I experienced the result firsthand.  It meant that the choices - not particularly remarkable by themselves I thought in either game - had weight, because the consequences of your decision could be felt in the near future, and you would have to play with/through the world you helped to create even in a small way.

What I liked about Dragon Age 2 was that the protagonist's opinions actually mattered to the people around him.  And that made relationships dynamic.  My Hawke in particular would feel like he failed the game.  Something that is not possible in DAO unless you simply don't finish.  The Archdemon always dies.  Rayin Hawke wanted to save Kirkwall and preserve the status quo, he failed.  It's was roleplaying.

I would have liked more of the former in the latter, and more of the latter in the former.  That would be fantastic.  I felt DA2 didn't react enough from Act to Act, and I felt like I was simply picking options in TW1 and AP.  DAO provided neither, though it was excellent at introducing the world and providing exposition through its locations and characters.

I adored the way roleplaying was handled in Alpha Protocol. I know the game is mediocre, yet I still love it.

[Persephone]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

What do you find appealing, then?

Well I loved how in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 1 the gameworld reacted to the choices and I experienced the result firsthand.  It meant that the choices - not particularly remarkable by themselves I thought in either game - had weight, because the consequences of your decision could be felt in the near future, and you would have to play with/through the world you helped to create even in a small way.

What I liked about Dragon Age 2 was that the protagonist's opinions actually mattered to the people around him.  And that made relationships dynamic.  My Hawke in particular would feel like he failed the game.  Something that is not possible in DAO unless you simply don't finish.  The Archdemon always dies.  Rayin Hawke wanted to save Kirkwall and preserve the status quo, he failed.  It's was roleplaying.

I would have liked more of the former in the latter, and more of the latter in the former.  That would be fantastic.  I felt DA2 didn't react enough from Act to Act, and I felt like I was simply picking options in TW1 and AP.  DAO provided neither, though it was excellent at introducing the world and providing exposition through its locations and characters.

I adored the way roleplaying was handled in Alpha Protocol. I know the game is mediocre, yet I still love it.

I am still PRAYING to get AP2.

But much like I'll never get a Gabriel Knight 4, this too will have to remain wishful thinking.

[MorrigansLove]

Persephone wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

What do you find appealing, then?

Well I loved how in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 1 the gameworld reacted to the choices and I experienced the result firsthand.  It meant that the choices - not particularly remarkable by themselves I thought in either game - had weight, because the consequences of your decision could be felt in the near future, and you would have to play with/through the world you helped to create even in a small way.

What I liked about Dragon Age 2 was that the protagonist's opinions actually mattered to the people around him.  And that made relationships dynamic.  My Hawke in particular would feel like he failed the game.  Something that is not possible in DAO unless you simply don't finish.  The Archdemon always dies.  Rayin Hawke wanted to save Kirkwall and preserve the status quo, he failed.  It's was roleplaying.

I would have liked more of the former in the latter, and more of the latter in the former.  That would be fantastic.  I felt DA2 didn't react enough from Act to Act, and I felt like I was simply picking options in TW1 and AP.  DAO provided neither, though it was excellent at introducing the world and providing exposition through its locations and characters.

I adored the way roleplaying was handled in Alpha Protocol. I know the game is mediocre, yet I still love it.

I am still PRAYING to get AP2.

But much like I'll never get a Gabriel Knight 4, this too will have to remain wishful thinking.

It will never happen, because It didn't sell enough.

[Spartansfan8888]

simfamSP wrote...

Why cannot Bioware go in different directions without it's fanbase going berserk? Laidlaw knows his mistakes. I suggest you support him with actual constructive critisim than trolling. Yes you are trolling there is no doubt about that. Stating your own opinion is trolling if that opinion is trollish.

I think their new direction goal missed the boat a bit in some areas with a lot of people who had liked previous Bioware rpg's; but you are right that insults and calling for Mr. Laidlaw's job to be gone does nothing positive. 

[MorrigansLove]

I liked Alpha Protocol's ending, yet I dislike DA2's ending. ???

[Cybermortis]

simfamSP wrote...

Why cannot Bioware go in different directions without it's fanbase going berserk? Laidlaw knows his mistakes. I suggest you support him with actual constructive critisim than trolling. Yes you are trolling there is no doubt about that. Stating your own opinion is trolling if that opinion is trollish.

I think the major/common issues in the game have less to do with the attempt to go in other directions. And ultimately more to do with being badly implemented. This, however, is more likely a result of the game not having been given enough development time.

Speaking as someone who found DA2 a rather 'meh' experience at best. I think I can see many of the ideas and intentions that were floating around, and in my opinion almost all of them would probably have worked well. However due to the relatively short time the game was made in these ideas never lived up to their potential.

I think regardless of the comments Laidlaw may or may not have said it is unfair to blame him. I SERIOUSLY doubt he had anything to do with how long the game was given for development, and certainly most of the comments I've read appear (at least to me) to have originated with the {expletive} marketing/PR departments - the same morons who gave us the 'awesome-button'*.

At worst he may be responsable for badly overestimating quite how much they could get done in the time given. But even this can be forgiven to some degree by considering how long Bioware usually gives for development.

The full blame rests on the shoulders of whomever decided on the games release date, and who didn't have the sense to push it back further to allow the devs to really finish what they started.

(*I'm hoping the real 'awesome-button' dumps the entire marketing/PR departments at EA into a trash compactor).

[Merci357]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

I am still PRAYING to get AP2.

But much like I'll never get a Gabriel Knight 4, this too will have to remain wishful thinking.

It will never happen, because It didn't sell enough.

Just some food for thoughts... If I'd listened to so called "professional" reviewers, I likely would have missed Alpha Protocol. And sure, it's far from a masterpiece, but I'm glad I played it. And the very same is true with DA2. Granted, my expectations were lower regarding AP, but still, I try to judge games for what they are, not what they could have been.

[upsettingshorts]

MorrigansLove wrote...

I liked Alpha Protocol's ending, yet I dislike DA2's ending. ???

They're very similar except for the boat/cigar final sequence.  Which I kind of like, because in AP it forced me to run off with Mina Tang when, despite the fact I did save her, I would have run off with Scarlet Lake instead.  

I kinda think that while DA2's ending was sort of cinematically unsatisfying the openendedness - like DAO's until Awakening - provides more freedom for the player's "head canon" for their Hawke. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 01:17 .

[Drogo45]

Well, the dim easily feel insulted.......

[Dengarde]

Justin, can I ask what exactly the problem is?

So some of us like the game, and you don't. Big freaking whoop. I think the Fallout series is the absolute DEFINITION of mediocre, yet you don't see me bashing it's fanbase.

We get it. You don't like the game. Stop insulting those who do.

[daemon1129]

People seem to forgot why they were so excited at those "ms dos" ending card. It is because everyone thought these will be reflected in the seuqel and they will be able to see how they turn out at DA2. I was so excited to see what happened to my Warden in DA2 when he became King. Needless to say, I am disappointed at what DA2 turn out to be.

Modifié par daemon1129, 17 avril 2011 - 01:30 .

[Persephone]

daemon1129 wrote...

People seem to forgot why they were so excited at those "ms dos" ending card. It is because everyone thought these will be reflected in the seuqel and they will be able to see how they turn out at DA2. I was so excited to see what happened to my Warden in DA2 when he became King. Needless to say, I am disappointed at what DA2 turn out to be.

Eh....that illusion was well destroyed by something called Awakening.

[MDarwin]

Persephone wrote...

redneck nosferatu wrote...

These fanboys sure prove how strong denial can be. The denial in this thread is so strong it warps reality.

Never mind the rest of your absolutely respectful, well written and constructive post but....

Reality is more warped by melodramatic egomaniacs howling about the Lead Designer of a game insulting their precious little level of importance.

And by expecting said Lead Designer to apologize, call his own creation crap...because THEY think so and clearly, Mr. Laidlaw MUST be brought to see that, no matter the cost! Burn the witch!

Tell me, Oh Wise One, why do they resort of "Bashing DAO" so much?

[Persephone]

MDarwin wrote...

Persephone wrote...

redneck nosferatu wrote...

These fanboys sure prove how strong denial can be. The denial in this thread is so strong it warps reality.

Never mind the rest of your absolutely respectful, well written and constructive post but....

Reality is more warped by melodramatic egomaniacs howling about the Lead Designer of a game insulting their precious little level of importance.

And by expecting said Lead Designer to apologize, call his own creation crap...because THEY think so and clearly, Mr. Laidlaw MUST be brought to see that, no matter the cost! Burn the witch!

Tell me, Oh Wise One, why do they resort of "Bashing DAO" so much?

I haven't seen outright bashing.

As I work in Sales & Marketing, I'm very familiar with that kind of strategy when advertising a new product. So it doesn't bother me. Laidlaw could bash DAO 24/7 for all I care. Wouldn't change my love for it at all.

[Merced652]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Change what you pick in DAO, get a different epilogue card. Some people find that reactive and appealing. I do not.

What do you find appealing, then?

Apparently exploding corpses, electro slide closing attack animations, ketchup packet blood splatter effects, disjointed story, and a somewhat charming dwarf. 

I left out some of the more poignant ones seeing how he said he only liked 'most' of the changes in direction. 

[Persephone]

Merced652 wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Change what you pick in DAO, get a different epilogue card. Some people find that reactive and appealing. I do not.

What do you find appealing, then?

Apparently exploding corpses, electro slide closing attack animations, ketchup packet blood splatter effects, disjointed story, and a somewhat charming dwarf. 

I left out some of the more poignant ones seeing how he said he only liked 'most' of the changes in direction. 

This question was already answered.

And the thread has calmed down significantly. Please do not turn it into mud slinging again, alright?